Yeah, they will. Every title they released in the past two years or so required uPlay.

Click to expand...

But I won't actually have to download the Uplay Client will I and start it up like Steam? It will just automatically save my login info like it does when I launch AC 1 or 2 through my steam when it brings up the Uplay client right? It's not actually going to make me install a separate client?

Oh lawdy, I can't wait for the day to come when every publisher has their own digital distribution client and then other digital distribution method will sell these games that require people to install another companies client to play.

But I won't actually have to download the Uplay Client will I and start it up like Steam? It will just automatically save my login info like it does when I launch AC 1 or 2 through my steam when it brings up the Uplay client right? It's not actually going to make me install a separate client?

Click to expand...

Nope, games like Anno 2070 bought on Steam launch uPlay which, in turn, launches Anno 2070. It's no different than requiring Steam to play Portal.

Oh lawdy, I can't wait for the day to come when every publisher has their own digital distribution client and then other digital distribution method will sell these games that require people to install another companies client to play.

Gameception

Click to expand...

Gamception indeed. What the industry really needs is a standard for digital distribution that all publishers can abide to. Think BOINC. Many vendors have their own version of the client software but they all fundamentally work the same. It gives people choice while still providing a level playing field.

Ubisoft is berated for the bass-ackwards DRM from Anno. They "fix" it by slightly less restrictions. The consumer still gives them the middle finger. Subsequently, they decide that the DRM is actually hurting rather than protecting sales.

In contrast, EA has basically stated that every game they are currently making (and have for the last two years) requires "inter-connectivity." The BS way of saying DRM because to get games to work you have to link them to three separate accounts. This being an extensions of them "no longer developing single player games" (their words, see http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119449-EA-Turns-Its-Back-on-Single-Player-Games for words from EA's label president).

I see games like Skyrim that print money, but have more bugs than can be counted. The community loves them so much that they are willing to spend $20 on DLC. They are willing to (presumably) buy DLC to do what the creation kit can already do. Why then are these companies intent on that kind of DRM foolishness? I hate that Steam is DRM, but it's DRM done well. Until EA and Ubisoft can replicate that I'm done buying their products. At least Ubisoft is moving in the right direction though...

@Hoff : Skyrim uses Steam. I don't really understand what you are getting at with your comments about them (Bethesda/Zenimax).

Click to expand...

I can tolerate DRM that works in the background (Steam).

Origin is a problem, and so is Ubisoft's always on DRM. My comment, though worded awkwardly, was to this fact. At least that was my intention.

Ubisoft -> Steam
Origin -> DRM by "integration" and losing single player
Progress, maybe. I still have trouble wrapping my head around it.

Edit:
What I mean is that Skyrim has deep flaws, and is a completely single player experience. Despite this, it sells like crazy. EA seems to think that this is impossible. The continue to release multi-player oriented games, and blame the lack of single player games sales on the market (rather than lackluster development by them). I'm having issues understanding where EA's mentality comes from. Ubisoft is starting to make more sense, which boggles my mind.

Absolute silence without compromising performance is my only benchmark score.

The thing is, Steam actually brought bunch of extra goodies along with the DRM so we have forgiven it. Global achievements, cloud support etc etc, sometimes i buy the game just because of that. Because i like the cloud syncing between PC and notebook.

I think that one of the reasons that Skyrim (and the entire ES series) does so well is that it has always been an SP game and is designed to be that, and that alone. Despite it's problems, it offers a huge amount of content which is key to making a good SP game. Let's face it, Skyrim is a freakin' whole country in a box, and that is a bar set by Bethesda that many other developers can't, or don't want to, match.

If you've been keeping up with the gaming industry news, more and more of the top people are starting to admit that "content is king" when it comes to games. People no longer are happy with a few hours of fast and furious gameplay in SP, and then forced to move to MP for a continued experience. That, and the fact that many MP games are riddled with problems (bots, cheats, vulgarity/racism by users in chat, etc.), has left a lot of people with a bad taste (and that's not mentioning the lack of the developers' bringing anything new to the table to keep it fresh and exciting).

There are also the facts that the gaming landscape changes regularly, releasing new IP is risky in a downturned environment, and investors want to be kept happy and know their investments are safe (cue DRM).
These, however, are the same risks any company faces when doing business and in my mind it's just pointing fingers at others for failure to make truly compelling products that sell well.

Despite it's problems, it offers a huge amount of content which is key to making a good SP game. Let's face it, Skyrim is a freakin' whole country in a box, and that is a bar set by Bethesda that many other developers can't, or don't want to, match.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Skyrim may have a lot of stuff, but it's shallow. Content is pointless if it has no meaning, and meaningless is Bethsofts paradigm. I hate them. Tricking people into thinking they are what RPG's should be like (and I know Bethsoft doesn't herald their games as RPGs (generally) but people still think they are), just like that. Thank god for Obsidian. :shadedshu

@Frick : You disagree with my statement (massive amount of content) and then counter with a completely different argument (shallow content)?
Oh well, that's really off topic and we can save that discussion for a relevant thread.
(Edit : This is so interesting to me I think I will start a thread on it. Thanks Frick !!)

On Topic (DRM) :
I think that companies are still trying to find a good balance between keeping their fan base happy and at the same time showing their investors that they are actively working to protect their IP.
Some also tend to use "piracy" as the scapegoat term for poor sales of a lack-lustre turd of a game.
They are also stuck on the "old school" way of dealing with piracy (more DRM), which in today's digital age is ridiculous.
I do think that some of the companies are waking up to the reality that much of the oppresive (or very intrusive) DRM does not stop piracy (or even slow it), and if it does help, it makes it so difficult for the honest consumer to play their games that their sales take a hit due to frustration and aggrivation forced upon the legit buyers.

I think in the future we will see a convergence of DRM "styles" that are acceptable to all involved. Perhaps something Steam like, or perhaps something new. Time will tell.
In the mean time it will make for interesting dicussion here on TPU.

Thank you Ubi.. You had some seriously shitty drm problems.. You destroyed Silent hunter 4 and 5 because of it.. Yes YOU did.. No one would play, because no one could stay connected. We had to find stupid methods and work around servers, to even play the game..

As far as DRM goes. Wherever there are little punk hacker, pirate, pansies, there will be pirated games..
Honest people stay honest. Criminals stay criminals.. The DRM never stops the pirates..

xD Ubisoft has redeemed themselves in my book. Cheers to logic and reason.

Click to expand...

While it's the right move, I wouldn't laud Ubisoft for doing this. Companies only stop pulling crap like this for two reasons: it's hitting their bottom line and lawsuits. They don't appear to have been sued, so they were obviously losing money since there must have been lots of people like me boycotting their products with this baked in.

I'm not going to give Ubi a pass yet. They have their uplay store as well so I predict all their big titles being uplay only just like all EAs recent major releases have been only available through origin.

I disagree. Skyrim may have a lot of stuff, but it's shallow. Content is pointless if it has no meaning, and meaningless is Bethsofts paradigm.

Click to expand...

It's a combat RPG.....same with FO3 and especially New Vegas.
From that point of view, they're epic, though I installed a higher difficulty mod for Skyrim, but definitely no need to do that to FO3 or Vegas.

Ubisoft is berated for the bass-ackwards DRM from Anno. They "fix" it by slightly less restrictions. The consumer still gives them the middle finger. Subsequently, they decide that the DRM is actually hurting rather than protecting sales.

In contrast, EA has basically stated that every game they are currently making (and have for the last two years) requires "inter-connectivity." The BS way of saying DRM because to get games to work you have to link them to three separate accounts. This being an extensions of them "no longer developing single player games" (their words, see http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119449-EA-Turns-Its-Back-on-Single-Player-Games for words from EA's label president).

I see games like Skyrim that print money, but have more bugs than can be counted. The community loves them so much that they are willing to spend $20 on DLC. They are willing to (presumably) buy DLC to do what the creation kit can already do. Why then are these companies intent on that kind of DRM foolishness? I hate that Steam is DRM, but it's DRM done well. Until EA and Ubisoft can replicate that I'm done buying their products. At least Ubisoft is moving in the right direction though...

Click to expand...

Wait what? Like it or not Steam and Origin are the exact same damn thing with a different UI. Origin actually allows me to sign when I don't have internet and play my games offline. I can't do that with steam as far as I am aware of. Won't sign me in offline.

Wait what? Like it or not Steam and Origin are the exact same damn thing with a different UI. Origin actually allows me to sign when I don't have internet and play my games offline. I can't do that with steam as far as I am aware of. Won't sign me in offline.

Click to expand...

Works on my end. My crap 4G internet rarely allows me to game online, so I use Steam in offline mode. Works perfect.

Wait what? Like it or not Steam and Origin are the exact same damn thing with a different UI. Origin actually allows me to sign when I don't have internet and play my games offline. I can't do that with steam as far as I am aware of. Won't sign me in offline.

Click to expand...

Nah, steam has a offline mode.....you try and start it without net and it gives you the option to use offline mode where you can access your games, but obviously can't access the store etc.